but the minority was still not satisfied and continues to spread vicious rumors about the Central Committee—rumors to the effect that it is incapable of functioning. In my view, this is the most outrageous violation of discipline and party duty. Moreover, all of this is mere gossip, since the Central Committee was elected at the Congress from people whom the majority of the "Iskra organization" had endorsed. And the "Iskra organization," of course, knew better than anyone else who was suited for this important role. The Central Committee was elected at the Congress from three people*—all three had long been members of the "Iskra organization"; two of them were members of the Organizational Committee; the third was invited to the Organizational Committee but did not join of his own personal reluctance, though he worked for a long time at the OC on all-party matters. This means that the most reliable and tested people have been chosen for the Central Committee, and I consider it a most improper tactic to cry out about their "incapability" when the minority itself is preventing the Central Committee from working. All accusations against the Central Committee (concerning formalism, bureaucratism, etc.) are nothing more than malicious fabrications utterly devoid of any foundation.

Needless to say, I fully share your view concerning how inappropriate it is to cry out against centralism and against the Congress from people who previously spoke differently and are dissatisfied because on one particular question the Congress acted contrary to their wishes. Instead of acknowledging their error, these people are now disorganizing the party! In my opinion, Russian comrades must decisively rise up against any disorganization and insist that the Congress's resolutions be carried out, so that party work is not hampered by squabbles over who should be in the Editorial Board and in the Central Committee. The squabbles of foreign literati and all sorts of other generals (whom you rather harshly call downright intriguers) will only cease to be dangerous to the party when Russian committee leaders—the directing cadres—become more independent and are able to firmly demand the fulfillment of what their representatives shall decide at the party Congress.

* G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Lengnik, and V. A. Noskov. Ed.

As for the relationship between the Editorial Board and the Central Committee, you are entirely correct that one should not grant permanent precedence to one over the other. The Congress itself, in my view, should decide this question separately each time. And now, according to the statutes, the Party Soviet stands above both the Editorial Board and the Central Committee. And in the Soviet there are two members from the Editorial Board and two from the Central Committee. The fifth was elected by the Congress. This means the Congress itself decided which side should be given precedence this time. Stories to the effect that we wanted to suppress the Russian Central Committee by means of the foreign Editorial Board—that is pure gossip in which there is not a word of truth. When Plekhanov and I were on the Editorial Board, we even had three Russian social-democrats in the Soviet and only two foreigners. Whereas now with the Marchists it has become the opposite!—judge by that what credence to give their talk!

I press your hand firmly and earnestly request you to inform me whether you received this letter, whether you read my letter to the Editorial Board and nos. 52 and 53 of Iskra, and how things stand generally in your committee now.

With comradely greetings,

Lenin

1903

Written between 17 and 22 December

Sent from Geneva to Ekaterinoslav

First published in 1929

in Lenin Miscellany X

Printed from the manuscript